If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should the Cubs now see if he's amenable to a short term, high AAV deal?

Maybe.

The thing is that because the Braves made Bourn a qualifying offer, he will cost the Cubs a high 2nd round choice. With the new CBA and compensation system, that is roughly equivalent to what a first round supplemental pick has been in the past few years.

The Cubs would have to be reasonably certain they could get a prospect that is of higher quality than what has traditionally been a 1st round supplemental. In other words, a pitcher better than, let's say Pierce Johnson. Or at least a Johnson type prospect plus another player.

That's risky. What if Bourn regresses or gets hurt? The Cubs lose that potential to flip him and regain any value. The Cubs have a bird in the hand now with that draft pick, should they be quick to flip it for two in the bush?

I'm not so sure.

The other argument for signing Bourn is simply to make the Cubs a better team, but honestly, Bourn has been a very good player, worth about 4 wins per Fangraphs over the past few years, but is he a difference maker by himself?

Even if he manages to sustain that level of performance into his 30s, how much does that help? Moreover, it wouldn't even be 4 wins since he'd be replacing either David DeJesus or a Nate Schierholtz/Dave Sappelt platoon. Either way it should worth around 2 WAR. In other words, it's likely to be about a 2 win upgrade, 3 at the most.

Are the Cubs 2 or even 4 wins away from being a contender? Probably not. It's possible, but it hardly seems worth the risk at this stage. Perhaps if there is some more movement on the roster, such as a trade of Alfonso Soriano, I may change my mind on this. Right now, though I know many will disagree, I just don't think it's a wise move for a rebuilding team.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

In a sport with a 9 man lineup, a 25 man roster, and almost half that roster devoted to pitchers I don't get why FAs so often get held to this ridiculous standard.

Not Bourn, just in general...People were against Upton for this same thing, and it still makes zero sense to me.

I still would prefer Greinke, who also wouldn't be The Difference. That's not the ****ing point.

Greinke would make much more of a difference than Bourn would. Getting an ace for the pitching staff to go along with Garza and Shark would give them a very nice top 3 in the rotation. It isn't that I am holding Bourn to a higher standard just that I don't see his contribution being more beneficial to the Cubs than keeping the draft pick. With or without him the team is going to be pretty putrid again as currently constructed. Now if they started making different moves prior to the season starting I would be more than happy to change my mind.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

I think trading Soriano would lessen Bourn's value. You would be adding a guy that is great at getting on base but subtracting your best run producer. Adding Bourn and trading Soriano would be counter productive.

Bourn is a premium defensive center fielder, one of the best in the game, and a tremendous baserunner, doing just enough with the bat to make him an above-average regular and borderline All-Star.

His primary value is with his glove, as he has outstanding range derived from his plus raw speed and good instincts in center. He is the type of player who would be ideal on a team with a large center field to cover or simply one with a flyball-oriented pitching staff. He is an aggressive baserunner, with a career success rate over 80 percent on stolen bases, and he adds further value through his ability to take extra bases when hitters after him put the ball in play.

His swing is very closed and doesn't generate much power, as he uses his hands more than his legs and tries to hit line drives to all fields. That closed stance after his stride means he can be tied up on the inner half, at or under his hands, such as a fastball from a lefty or a slider down and in from a righty. Given his speed, however, the approach works because he is a threat to reach base whenever he puts the ball in play.

The one concern I have with Bourn is that so much of his value is tied up in his legs, rather than his eyes or his bat. He is one major leg injury or a series of smaller ones away from losing the value he contributes on defense and on the bases. That value could diminish if he loses speed due to age as he gets into his 30s. I don't think either scenario is highly likely, but it's the major risk in signing a player like Bourn to a lengthy deal.

That is Keith Law's write up on him. The Cubs do not have a large center field for him to patrol. And the last part of it is something that is truly concerning to me. Reminds me a lot of what was being said prior to the Soriano signing. A player who has a lot of his value tied up in his legs/speed. Now I don't think team Theoyer would be dumb enough to give him a Sorianoesque contract I just don't see the value. If your going to go with a big name OF I'd rather go with Hamilton putting Dejesus in CF while giving BJax a chance after some time in AAA.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

The real issue here cannot possibly have anything do with a 2nd round pick. David Dejesus in his current incarnation is worth more than a 2nd round pick. Darwin Barney before this year was worth more than a 2nd round pick. Sometimes we need to take a step back and really understand how little the difference is between draft picks in terms of overall value, particularly when we're not comparing specific players. Even then, we're all just reading a few paragraphs scattered around the internet on these guys trying to project what type of player they'll be in 5 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-farm system, but I think the value of non first round picks bears out over a bundle of picks over time through good scouting and drafting, and not in the inherent value of a specific pick in a specific round.

The biggest issue is the combination of dollars and time committed to the player relative to the value you reasonably expect to be getting from him. It could well be that the Cubs' FO doesn't like how so much of his value can be so clearly diminished by a single injury, and that they value that risk as high enough to drive Bourn under any realistic contract he'll receive.

Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.

No thank you to Bourn. He's an average hitter with little to no power. His whole game is predicated on his legs. I just couldn't see over paying for a 30 year old on the down slide of his career. He might have 2 above average years left in him. I doubt he signs for that. His legs are going to be the FIRST thing to go. Without his legs, he's a below average producer. I'll pass.

I seem to recall at least some sabermetric research that said that the concern about speed guys aging quickly is overblown, especially for outfielders. It's infield innings that eat up legs. But I could be misremembering.